Radicalisation reform programme fails

In the Daily Telegraph this morning.

The Government may have to give up on reforming some terrorists, says its advisor on anti-terror laws, as it emerged high-security prisoners have refused to join a flagship deradicalisation programme. Data released under freedom of information laws has revealed 15 inmates at high-security prisons including HMP Belmarsh, HMP Wakefield and HMP Frankland have refused to enrol on the Government’s main deradicalisation programme since January 2018.
Jonathan Hall, QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said it would be wrong to overstate the significance of the disclosure in terms of the risk to the public because of the uncertainty over the effectiveness of schemes like the Healthy Identity Intervention (HII).

But he said: “We may have to accept that some offenders  and I emphasise some - [can never be reformed] although that doesn’t mean reform should be discounted for others.” He said it was right to expect prisoners to “address the causes of their offending” but in order to do this the authorities including prison, police and probation needed “carrots and sticks.”

The Government’s proposed new anti-terror laws, currently before Parliament, removed “one of those carrots entirely” by denying the most dangerous terrorists the prospect of early release. They will instead be required to serve a minimum of 14 years with no prospect of parole before being released under licence for up to 25 years where they could be recalled to jail for any breach of the tough conditions such as where they live and who they contact. “This may reflect a perception that encouraging reform for these offenders is less important than it was considered previously,” said Mr Hall.

The HII scheme involves the offender attending repeated sessions with a psychologist who encourages them to talk about their motivations, beliefs, identity and relationships with both other extremists and the rest of society.

The scheme, which was piloted in 2010 and will be assessed in 2022, has previously drawn criticism. Christopher Dean, the psychologist who designed it, has even conceded that some of those who have taken part regressed because of their uniquely complex identities.

Those who believe in deradicalisation do not appreciate the power of religious belief. A conversion experience seems to be associated by a kind of re-wiring of the brain, accompanied by a conviction that one has found the absolute truth. This set of beliefs become a sort of 'master programme' which governs everything the believer thinks and does. Any shift from this is extremely difficult. Having recently made the transition from Christian Roman Catholic to Christian Eastern Orthodox - a tiny shift - I have noticed how hard this is, in this case because the Roman church claims to be the sole route to salvation, a claim which is well supported by scriptural and historic claims. My former parish priest and others, genuinely concerned, gave me a talk about the dangers of being out of communion with the Pope and of falling into heresy through not believing in the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary.

In the case of a radicalised Moslem, what belief could possibly replace it? Although such conversions are known, the individuals are unlikely to become committed Anglicans, Quakers or Catholics. Reversion to a de-radicalised form of Islam would be difficult because radicalisation is a logical conclusions from the texts themselves; as they are recorded in the Hadith, the lives of Mohammed and his followers are not so different from those of today's radical Islamists, who would claim to be taking them as role models.

This is why deradicalisation programmes were always bound to fail. Allowing these men to develop long term relationships with a good imam or priest or nun might enable a few to find a better path, but it would require dedicated work. One possible alternative to lifelong incarceration would be to allow them to migrate to a country of their choice which was willing to accept them.